You hear that? Umpires, you're ruining Christmas.

Is Bobby V one of the human factors that could be eliminated? Pleeeeeze?

You want robot managers?

Edit: Valentine has a point though, the 'human' element are the players, not the umpires.

someone should take that dago off the calendar

I am fully in favor of replacing Valentine with Tom Servo.

When I did the Little League World Series, I thought it was the most criminal thing I ever saw.

I would have gone with 9/11 myself, but maybe he didn't have the TV on that day.

For all that we mock him, he's absolutely right. We've already got technology that measures this, and the only thing keeping it out of the game is tradition (well, that and the umpires' union, who I'm sure would go on strike at the mere thought of having this power taken away from them). It's ridiculous that each umpire gets his own strike zone, that there are different zones for veteran pitchers and rookies, for All-Star hitters and scrubs. I'm not so much on board with the whole "won't someone please think of the children" line of argument, but the basic premise is spot on.

And yes, I realize this is a problem in every sport. Superstars in the NBA gets to take 9 steps, a hop, 6 more steps, a pivot-spin-step-mambo lunge-Charleston leg waggle, and then 4 more steps if that's "their move". Big name receivers in the NFL could taze a DB and probably get a defensive interference call if the defender's limp body fell in his path (and heaven forbid anyone breathe on Tom Brady without first offering him a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice, or that's roughing the passer).

But this is much less subjective than any of that. You could do this with a buzzer system that would be almost instantaneous (not like the replay argument that it would slow down the game). You'd still need an umpire at home plate to call foul tips, HBP, plays at the plate, etc., so no loss of jobs.

We'll get there some day, and it will be sooner rather than later. Standardize as much of this stuff as you can, and let the players decide the game, not Joe West and his "look at me" ego.

that kid is scarred for life playing our game by an injustice

Well, most of us are scarred for life by something. It could be a lot worse than getting rung up on a pitch a foot outside.

then someone says the most ridiculous words that I ever heard: ‘But we like the human factor.’

I'm not aware of anyone actually claiming to like bad calls. Preferring a tolerance for human imperfection over a rush to change the way the game is played is not the same thing. Of course, Valentine is free to argue with those who express such preferences. He's just not free to argue balls and strikes.

Has anyone done any kind of serious analytical work as to whether automated strike/ball calls would favor the batter or the pitcher more? Seems like it could go either way ... perhaps it wouldn't benefit either group more than the other, but I would assume that the consequences would be fairly major in some way or the other (which I'm not offering as a reason not to do it).

Fixing this instantly and permanently would be so. freaking. easy.

We have the technology. All we have to do is use the already existing technology that perfectly calls balls and strikes, and hand the plate umpire what basically amounts to an ipod that tells him the result as soon as the pitch hits the catcher's mitt. Then he calls out the result, same as he always has.

You could implement this tomorrow and 95% of fans wouldn't notice for months or years, if you didn't publicize it. In fact we would probably get to laugh at people who continue to ##### about bad strike/ball calls, having no clue that they are in fact being called perfectly.

It was funny to see Chris Rose on Intentional Talk today saying to stop criticizing umpires because one made the correct call on a close play at first. "Congrats! You didn't screw up at your job! Here's a cookie!"

Brian,

Several smart folks on this here site have opined that automating balls and strikes would strongly favor offense, on the theory that it will be much easier for hitters to have confidence in taking pitches when the personalization of the strike zone is removed from the equation.

It was funny to see Chris Rose on Intentional Talk today saying to stop criticizing umpires because one made the correct call on a close play at first. "Congrats! You didn't screw up at your job! Here's a cookie!"

It's impossible to expect 100% perfection (just like I would hope my boss doesn't expect 100% perfection from me). But the number of missed calls on borderline pitches is surprisingly high, when you go look at the pitch-by-pitch data. I've seen games where it looks like the home plate ump did no better than 50/50 on pitches within 3-4 inches of the zone in any direction.

Several smart folks on this here site have opined that automating balls and strikes would strongly favor offense, on the theory that it will be much easier for hitters to have confidence in taking pitches when the personalization of the strike zone is removed from the equation.

Hitters would have to adjust to the high strike, though. Pitches above the waist are getting called balls these days, even though they're clearly in the strike zone. Those would be strikes in an automated system, and I think pitchers who throw hard and can locate the ball above the waist would have an advantage. I also think you'd see a lot more called strikes on curve balls that dip through the zone but end up low in the catcher's mitt. Pitchers with big breaking curves might find more success than they're getting now.

There would be a period of adjustment for batters (not clear how long this would last - if they implemented this in spring training, maybe 4-5 weeks of games would be enough to retrain their eyes on what to expect).

Brian,

Several smart folks on this here site have opined that automating balls and strikes would strongly favor offense, on the theory that it will be much easier for hitters to have confidence in taking pitches when the personalization of the strike zone is removed from the equation.

I think this is likely correct. Though, as long as the frickin' laser beams also alert the umpire when any part of the batter's body or equipment grazes the strike zone (penalty: one automatic strike), the effect of pitchers actually being able to get inside strikes shouldn't be overlooked.

How would (do?) they decide the height of the strike zone?

I've seen games where it looks like the home plate ump did no better than 50/50 on pitches within 3-4 inches of the zone in any direction.

Maybe you should watch a few games that don't involve Angel Hernandez behind the plate.

Hitters would have to adjust to the high strike, though. Pitches above the waist are getting called balls these days, even though they're clearly in the strike zone.

I'm not sure we should assume that these would be strikes in an automated system. Any such system would be calibrated the way MLB wants it calibrated, and they probably won't want it calibrated to call unhittable pitches strikes. IOW, I don't know how Bud and the boys feel about the state of ball/strike umpiring in general, but I'm pretty sure they consider umps "missing" the high strike to be a feature rather than a bug.

All we have to do is use the already existing technology that perfectly calls balls and strikes . . .

Do we really know that current technology perfectly adjusts for the batter's stance and shape, rather than just attempting to do so?

How would (do?) they decide the height of the strike zone?

You mean as a function of batter height and stance? That's just coding, right? But I think it means rookies would still get screwed.

How would (do?) they decide the height of the strike zone?

All players would need to get their nipples pierced and outfitted with sensors that would indicate the top of the strike zone to the measuring system.

The knees are a cinch.

Good grief, somebody please get a binky for baby Bobby.

You mean as a function of batter height and stance? That's just coding, right?

I'm just curious about the process. Do they use a photo of the batter? The stance varies throughout the warmup and swing - how do they decide what to use?

Would the proposed automated strike zone be instituted at all levels of professional baseball, or just at the big league-level? The former seems like it would be kind of costly, and the latter would mean a fundamental change from the way the sport is played by its participants only once they've reached the very highest levels. That seems somewhat odd.

I'm just curious about the process. Do they use a photo of the batter? The stance varies throughout the warmup and swing - how do they decide what to use?

Presumably the system would be programmed to set the top and bottom of the zone on the basis of the batter's posture as he swings, which is what the human umpires are supposed to do. I'm not entirely sure how much pitch f/x even tries to do in this regard; the little box on gameday is always the same size.

Would the proposed automated strike zone be instituted at all levels of professional baseball, or just at the big league-level?

Well, Bobby V wants to start with Little League!

I've seen games where it looks like the home plate ump did no better than 50/50 on pitches within 3-4 inches of the zone in any direction.

I'm definitely at the point where I want umpires to stay simply to make people even more unhinged.

Would the proposed automated strike zone be instituted at all levels of professional baseball, or just at the big league-level? The former seems like it would be kind of costly, and the latter would mean a fundamental change from the way the sport is played by its participants only once they've reached the very highest levels. That seems somewhat odd.

I don't expect the cost of implementation at all levels of pro ball is prohibitive, but I don't really know enough about the nuts and bolts to be sure. It's probably a legitimate question to ask. Pitchers not getting strikes off the outside corner, but actually getting them on the inside corner, would be a major adjustment to have to make.

I don't expect the cost of implementation at all levels of pro ball is prohibitive, but I don't really know enough about the nuts and bolts to be sure.

You mean there aren't any used pitch f/x systems for sale on e-bay?

If you look at the data, you see that sz_top and sz_bot change for every pitch, even on the same batter. I remember reading an article that said the operator of the old Questec system would watch the batter at the start of an at bat, and use a cursor to set the bottom and the top of the zone based on the batter's stance based on his camera view. PitchFX operators are obviously doing this on every pitch.

The batters could game the system by getting real crouchy on a pitch that they know they're not going to swing at, influencing the size of the zone on the next pitch.

You could define a uniform strike zone. Why should taller batters be penalized with a larger strike zone?

You could define a uniform strike zone. Why should taller batters be penalized with a larger strike zone?

Because the strike zone is supposed to be defined by the area where the batter should be expected to make contact.

I'm not sure we should assume that these would be strikes in an automated system. Any such system would be calibrated the way MLB wants it calibrated, and they probably won't want it calibrated to call unhittable pitches strikes

The high strike isn't unhittable, I think it was Ted Williams who said that these kids nowadays are walking on the pitch that put him in the hall of fame. The high strike, when made contact, is a very long homerun.

Would the proposed automated strike zone be instituted at all levels of professional baseball, or just at the big league-level? The former seems like it would be kind of costly, and the latter would mean a fundamental change from the way the sport is played by its participants only once they've reached the very highest levels. That seems somewhat odd.

Isn't basketball quarters longer in the NBA than in College? Same thing with the free throw? Doesn't the NFL have ##### rules for quarterbacks that don't exist at the lower levels? Isn't the highest level of soccer all about the ability to flop, stuff that is never called at the lower levels?

I'm not sure that improved accuracy in the strike zone would be a fundamental difference, in theory as you move up the ranks, the umpiring is supposed to get better, because the umps are doing the same thing.

Good grief, somebody please get a binky for baby Bobby.

I think Bobby V has a point, it's a crappy system that fines a guy for speaking out about the quality of the other employees. Would you want to work with someone who is as crappy at their job as Angel Hernandez, and not be able to say anything about his performance without you getting a fine?

Say from 15 to 45 inches from the ground.

You could define a uniform strike zone. Why should taller batters be penalized with a larger strike zone?

They get the advantage of better leverage, why shouldn't they get a larger strike zone?

Isn't basketball quarters longer in the NBA than in College? Same thing with the free throw? Doesn't the NFL have ##### rules for quarterbacks that don't exist at the lower levels? Isn't the highest level of soccer all about the ability to flop, stuff that is never called at the lower levels?

Length of games vary all the way up, not just at the highest level. And they don't really change anything about how the game is played.

Free throws differences? Other than 1 on 1 vs. 2 shots (on three team fouls), there's nothing major. It's not like the distances are different.

The 3-point line is a different distance, though I don't know that it changes the playing of the game much.

QB rules - probably not. Most NFL rules eventually get filtered down to the lower levels.

Soccer - no, that's just nonsense.

I think playing your entire baseballing career with a home plate umpire calling balls and strikes (and all that entails), then moving onto a uniform, automated zone would be a far more significant adjustment for the players than any of those you listed. But considering it's never been tried, that's just a guess.

Yep, I meant three point line.

The soccer comment was because after two minutes, nobody on the planet is awake enough to know what is happening in a soccer game(except garderners because they enjoy watching grass grow) , just thought I would have thrown out something random.

Not sure how the QB argument is any different, of course they would start at the major league level with that technology, as the cost went down, they would filter to the lower levels.

Mind you, I'm a proponent of instant replay, not a proponent of automated strike zone(I think the league could actually incentivize the entire process to improve the umps accuracy, and don't see a real need for it---not opposed to it mind you, but just like the all star gaming counting, it's a meh proposition to me, better than what was before, but not really necessary)

The way to do this is to use technology to call the constant part of the strike zone-the edges of the plate-and let the umpire judge the part that can change based on the batters actions-the top and the bottom of the sz. The umpire would have less to do, which would most likely improve his performance, it gives the umpire something to do other than move the game along, and it would get the union on board with just a little persuasion.

If you look at the data, you see that sz_top and sz_bot change for every pitch, even on the same batter. I remember reading an article that said the operator of the old Questec system would watch the batter at the start of an at bat, and use a cursor to set the bottom and the top of the zone based on the batter's stance based on his camera view. PitchFX operators are obviously doing this on every pitch.

If that's what they're doing, then they're doing it wrong. Stance before the swing is not how the strike zone is defined. It's posture during the swing. Kevin Youkilis stands up very straight when waiting for the pitch, but not when swinging at a pitch. Rickey Henderson had a pronounced crouch when waiting for the pitch, but not when swinging at a pitch.

I think most players and managers would say that they would like to have a perfect strike zone used on every pitch, but that a consistent strike zone - one that gives a hitter confidence that if they correctly read a pitch, they'll know if it would be called a strike or a ball - is the most important thing. This, more than anything, is what current technology could dramatically improve.

I know Bobby is talking about pitches that kids can't even reach with their bat, but whatever.

MLB umps do a great job. The odds that the call is correct are favorable. And around half the close calls have been shown to be correct. The umps have a very sophisticated method that enables this success. WAG rules.

I think an umpire has to lean a little toward the pitcher at the little league level and find some strikes. If you always call the zone by the book, you're asking for bunch of walks, and kids tend to get passive and watch hittable pitches go by, waiting for something down the middle. The few years that I did it, LL managers often asked for a generous strike zone to get their batters to be aggressive. The "official" strike zone of many of those kids is tiny and you're talking about pitchers who don't have that extra 10 years of experience like major leaguers. There are pitch count limits, so they don't want to have to use more pitchers, and pace is important in keeping kids focused. You tend to get a crisper game played if kids are swinging the bats. Consistency is definitely the most important thing though, it's actually harder to create those corners than just call it straight.

For all that we mock him, he's absolutely right. We've already got technology that measures this, and the only thing keeping it out of the game is tradition (well, that and the umpires' union, who I'm sure would go on strike at the mere thought of having this power taken away from them). It's ridiculous that each umpire gets his own strike zone, that there are different zones for veteran pitchers and rookies, for All-Star hitters and scrubs. I'm not so much on board with the whole "won't someone please think of the children" line of argument, but the basic premise is spot on.

Technology has advanced a lot in 30 years, but I remember reading about the testing of an automated umpire in one of Ron Luciano's books... (He described it as a short, frumpy machine that made a lot of crazy noises -- said it reminded him of Earl Weaver)... it did not go well.

IIRC, the first day of testing, they discovered that the machine didn't account for swing strikes... so they adjusted it. Day two, the catcher discovered that he could trigger the strike call by moving his glove into the monitored zone. More adjustments.... Day three, the inventors pronounced all problems solved -- except, the balls that had be used were very delicate so no one could hit them ;-)

Obviously, technology is a ways beyond that now... but presumably, you still need to embed something in the ball and I still think that makes for an opportunity for mayhem.

Ultimately, I don't really care about inconsistent strikezones across umpires -- I think that's part of the game's charm -- but it does seem to me that there's a lot more inconsistency with individual umps.

Would the proposed automated strike zone be instituted at all levels of professional baseball, or just at the big league-level? The former seems like it would be kind of costly, and the latter would mean a fundamental change from the way the sport is played by its participants only once they've reached the very highest levels. That seems somewhat odd.

Considering that baseball is horrifically distorted at all amateur levels through the use of metal bats, I'm not too concerned about the fact that players would have to adjust to accurate umpiring at professional levels.

I think an umpire has to lean a little toward the pitcher at the little league level and find some strikes. If you always call the zone by the book, you're asking for bunch of walks, and kids tend to get passive and watch hittable pitches go by, waiting for something down the middle. The few years that I did it, LL managers often asked for a generous strike zone to get their batters to be aggressive. The "official" strike zone of many of those kids is tiny and you're talking about pitchers who don't have that extra 10 years of experience like major leaguers. There are pitch count limits, so they don't want to have to use more pitchers, and pace is important in keeping kids focused. You tend to get a crisper game played if kids are swinging the bats. Consistency is definitely the most important thing though, it's actually harder to create those corners than just call it straight.

This fits with my (distant) memory of LL - any kid who got most pitches over the plate would do well. However, the teams that earn their way to the playoffs leading to the LL WS are the top talent of their age class, and the zone ought to be tightened up at that point.

Why can't we simply predefine the strike zone based on the batter's height? Is it crucial to the integrity or entertainment value of the game to allow hitters that want to crouch to shrink their strike zone to do so?

Granted height isn't quite the only variable, two guys that are both 6'2" will usually have their shoulders in the same place, but the position of their knees might vary by an inch or two. But that can be adjusted for simply by taking everyone's measurements when they enter the league and entering them into the computer. This should not be difficult.

You could probably have a preset strike zone for each batter entered into the system. If they're bunting and crouch, or make an adjustment somehow, that's still not their "normal hitting stance".

But that can be adjusted for simply by taking everyone's measurements when they enter the league and entering them into the computer. This should not be difficult.

which is completely unfair to players like Rickey Henderson and Jamie Moyer who have shrunk at least 4 to 5 inches since their rookie years. The FEHA would have a fit over this.

How about the 10 yard measurement in football. Is there any need for that potentially inaccurate ritual when an official in the booth can signal the ref if the line on the TV screen has been passed?

How about the 10 yard measurement in football. Is there any need for that potentially inaccurate ritual when an official in the booth can signal the ref if the line on the TV screen has been passed?

You're being sarcastic, but yes, that's exactly what should happen (other than the TV screen part). It would take all the guesswork out of the "did the ball cross the end zone line or not" calls as well.